Channel protection bot

[Unit 193]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, Robert Wall wrote:

>> we've been trying out the ChanTracker [0] plugin in the bot named Drone`
>> for a few months now. The bot has been run in "debug" mode with the output
>> in #ubuntu-ops-monitor. Now we're ready to enable it in one of the channels.
>
>
> How has it been behaving in debug mode so far? Do you have any insights
> into false-positive rates, false-negative rates, behavior that might need
> further tuning or operator oversight, etc.?

In terms of basic flooding, the config is nearly the same as unopaste, so you'd 
see a mute by unopaste just after the debug message.  I could set the 'flood' 
options to the exact same if you'd like.  Drone` differentiates between someone 
spamming the same thing and someone pasting a log, as they are two different 
modes of flooding.

Yes, there'd likely still be things to fine tune, I've been receptive to any 
feedback and changing config to suit the needs of the operators.

Another thing to keep in mind, you can enable the flood and bot attack features 
without enabling others, say the banforward when someone has a connection 
bouncing.

>> ChanTracker is a ban management and channel protection plugin. Its main
>> benefit is that it can detect and take different actions to more types of
>> attacks [1] than unopaste (the current flood bot) supports. A few
>> additional benefits would include announcing mode changes in the control
>> channel, and the ability to set temporary exempts for users that will
>> auto-expire.
>>
>
> Based on this, I assume that the plan would be to remove unopaste and use
> ChanTracker instead, eventually. Does ChanTracker implement a superset of
> unopaste's functionality?

The only "missing" function is messaging the channel/user upon mute, and as 
stated above, does add quite a few.

>> For more information about the plugin and all its capabilities, please see
>> the readme[3]; ask Unit193 on IRC.
>>
>
> (I'm asking here instead because I think the answers are relevant to
> ubuntu-irc@ in general, and because I'd like further discussion of this
> idea so we hear about any objections etc. ahead of time.)

Of course.  If we're going for further discussion, perhaps a meeting might be 
useful?

~Unit 193

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUa8fEAAoJEG2YCV7r6b2RJVUH/14yt1VTNoSR5x+unQ4PSI74
q0OmblOyIT3eXQfTsFsFZ0uEXDwQ2mfvYHvUODHrKg/luPLvckM76UkB9DD1mqyW
wTg5vGijnECS4mNYTR/3rKjt3DKkcaADbPLKDPFsDbDklv97iEoaRuNPLCZu35WX
DAiisb/OleE2L8D4Jv2SXw1jAFHPJz9BYVaJPaQg97PX9mTR5rGvigtE0DFQDggN
8x9rSKXAFzm/gXdNlWy1GCjBPgztN5Q6PIwg0iCwUFSdweUzPUmXQhK1WirKBNxF
FRx7Ce75lH38YfXe6G+wwSuYIpBNe+6xpJbf1pAx6LifRfVBC0Nq8ycJduH43Ys=
=d+mD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----